Review research in management, like other research traditions, demands a methodological compass to advance coherent and credible knowledge claims. Yet, the established landscape of review research lacks a common framework for guiding and assessing its methodological rigor. We conducted an exploratory scoping review, analyzing a large sample of review articles published in the Journal of Management. The review focuses on reported practices dealing with five themes embedded within all review articles: their purpose, type, design, execution, and internal alignment. By comprehensively examining manifest practices, the review reveals crucial insights into the progress and evolving methods employed in management research reviews. Synthesizing those insights with existing conceptions of rigor, we present a conceptual framework including promising research directions on the methodological rigor of review articles.
AcharyaD.LewinA.GaussenA.LambertG.RenaudC.NawejK.PoderT. G.2022. Study protocol of associated criteria used in investigating septic transfusion reactions (STRs): A scoping review about available evidence. PLOS One, 17: e0262765.
2.
AdnerR.2017. Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43: 39-58.
3.
AguinisH.RamaniR. S.AlabduljaderN.2023. Best-practice recommendations for producers, evaluators, and users of methodological literature reviews. Organizational Research Methods, 26: 46-76.
4.
ArkseyH.O’MalleyL.2005. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8: 19-32.
5.
BauerT. N.2009. The Journal of Management Review issue: Celebrating 35 years. Journal of Management, 35: 1297-1301.
6.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R.1997. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1: 311-320.
7.
BerghD. D.OswaldF. L.2020. Fostering robust, reliable, and replicable research at theJournal of Management. Journal of Management, 46: 1302-1306.
8.
BlümelC.SchniedermannA.2020. Studying review articles in scientometrics and beyond: A research agenda. Scientometrics, 12: 711-728.
9.
BrinerR. B.DenyerD.2012. Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In RousseauD. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management: 112-129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
CarterC. R.WashispackS.2018. Mapping the path forward for sustainable supply chain management: A review of reviews. Journal of Business Logistics, 39: 242-247.
11.
CastañerX.OliveiraN.2020. Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among organizations: Establishing the distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic literature review. Journal of Management, 46: 965-1001.
12.
ChalmersI.HedgesL. V.CooperH.2002. A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation & The Health Professions, 25: 12-37.
13.
ChiassonM. W.2015. Avoiding methodological overdose: A declaration for independent ends. Journal of Information Technology, 30: 174-176.
14.
ColquhounH. L.LevacD.O’BrienK. K.StrausS.TriccoA. C.PerrierL.KastnerM.MoherD.2014. Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67: 1291-1294.
15.
ConnellyB. L.TihanyiL.CrookT. R.GangloffK. A.2014. Tournament theory: Thirty years of contests and competitions. Journal of Management, 40: 16-47.
16.
CropanzanoR.2009. Writing nonempirical articles for Journal of Management: General thoughts and suggestions. Journal of Management, 35: 1304-1311.
17.
DenyerD.TranfieldD.2009. Producing a systematic review. In BuchananD. A.BrymanA. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods: 671-689. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
18.
EdmondsonA. C.McManusS. E.2007. Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1246-1264.
19.
FanD.BreslinD.CallahanJ. L.Iszatt-WhiteM.2022. Advancing literature review methodology through rigor, generativity, scope, and transparency. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24: 171-180.
20.
FulmerC. A.GelfandM. J.2012. At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38: 1167-1230.
21.
Fusar-PoliP.de PabloG. S.De MicheliA.NiemanD. H.CorrellC. U.KessingL. V.PfennigA.BechdolfA.BorgwardtS.ArangoC.van AmelsvoortT.2020. What is good mental health? A scoping review. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 31: 33-46.
22.
GaoH.YuT.CannellaA. A.Jr.2016. The use of public language in strategy: A multidisciplinary review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 42: 21-54.
23.
GibbertM.RuigrokW.2010. The “what” and “how” of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published work. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 710-737.
24.
GlassG. V.McGawB.SmithM. L.1981. Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
GnyawaliD. R.SongY.2016. Pursuit of rigor in research: Illustration from coopetition literature. Industrial Marketing Management, 57: 12-22.
26.
GrantM. J.BoothA.2009. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108.
27.
GresovC.DrazinR.1997. Equifinality: Functional equivalence in organization design. Academy of Management Review, 22: 403-428.
28.
HarleyB.CornelissenJ.2019. Reframing rigor as reasoning: Challenging technocratic conceptions of rigor in management research. In ZilberT. B.AmisJ. M.MairJ. (Eds.), The production of managerial knowledge and organizational theory: New approaches to writing, producing and consuming theory: Vol. 59, 59-76. Emerald Publishing.
29.
HarleyB.CornelissenJ.2022. Rigor with or without templates? The pursuit of methodological rigor in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 25: 239-261.
30.
HieblM. R.2023. Sample selection in systematic literature reviews of management research. Organizational Research Methods, 26: 229-261.
31.
KastnerM.TriccoA. C.SoobiahC.LillieE.PerrierL.HorsleyT.WelchV.CogoE.AntonyJ.StrausS. E.2012. What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12: 114.
32.
KatzD.KahnR. L.1978. The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
33.
KetokiviM.MantereS.2021. What warrants our claims? A methodological evaluation of argument structure. Journal of Operations Management, 67: 755-776.
34.
KhalilH.PetersM.GodfreyC. M.McInerneyP.SoaresC. B.ParkerD.2016. An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 13: 118-123.
35.
KöhlerT.SmithA.BhakooV.2022. Templates in qualitative research methods: Origins, limitations, and new directions. Organizational Research Methods, 25: 183-210.
36.
KunischS.DenyerD.BartunekJ. M.MenzM.CardinalL. B.2023. Review research as scientific inquiry. Organizational Research Methods, 26: 3-45.
37.
KunischS.MenzM.BartunekJ. M.CardinalL. B.DenyerD.2018. Feature topic at organizational research methods: how to conduct rigorous and impactful literature reviews?Organizational Research Methods, 21: 519-523.
38.
LeidnerD. E.2018. Review and theory symbiosis: An introspective retrospective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19: 552-567.
MaddenA.BaileyC.AlfesK.FletcherL.2018. Using narrative evidence synthesis in HRM research: An overview of the method, its application, and the lessons learned. Human Resource Management, 57: 641-657.
41.
MaggioL. A.LarsenK.ThomasA.CostelloJ. A.ArtinoA. R.Jr.2021. Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review. Medical Education, 55: 689-700.
42.
MeuserJ. D.GardnerW. L.DinhJ. E.HuJ.LidenR. C.LordR. G.2016. A network analysis of leadership theory: The infancy of integration. Journal of Management, 42: 1374-1403.
43.
MunnZ.PetersM. D.SternC.TufanaruC.McArthurA.AromatarisE.2018. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18: 143.
44.
MunnZ.PollockD.KhalilH.AlexanderL.MclnerneyP.GodfreyC. M.PetersM.TriccoA. C.2022. What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 20: 950-952.
45.
NarayananV. K.ZaneL. J.LiguoriE.2021. Critical methodological considerations for entrepreneurial cognition research. Journal of Small Business Management, 59: 756-793.
46.
NeelyB. H.Jr.LovelaceJ. B.CowenA. P.HillerN. J.2020. Metacritiques of upper echelons theory: Verdicts and recommendations for future research. Journal of Management, 46: 1029-1062.
47.
NofalA. M.NicolaouN.SymeonidouN.ShaneS.2018. Biology and management: A review, critique, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 44: 7-31.
48.
ParéG.TrudelM. C.JaanaM.KitsiouS.2015. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52: 183-199.
49.
PatersonT. A.HarmsP. D.TuggleC. S.2018. Revisiting the rigor–relevance relationship: An institutional logics perspective. Human Resource Management, 57: 1371-1383.
50.
PetersM. D. J.GodfreyC. M.KhalilH.McInerneyP.ParkerD.SoaresC. B.2015. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation, 13: 141-146.
51.
PetersM. D. J.GodfreyC. M.McInerneyP.MunnZ.TriccoA. C.KhalilH.2020. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews (2020 version). In AromatarisE.MunnZ. (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis: 406-451. JBI.
52.
PhamM. T.RajićA.GreigJ. D.SargeantJ. M.PapadopoulosA.McEwenS. A.2014. A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5: 371-385.
53.
PostC.SaralaR.GatrellC.PrescottJ. E.2020. Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Management Studies, 57: 351-376.
54.
PrattM. G.2009. From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 856-862.
55.
PrattM. G.SonensheinS.FeldmanM. S.2022. Moving beyond templates: A bricolage approach to conducting trustworthy qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 25: 211-238.
56.
RousseauD. M.ManningJ.DenyerD.2008. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals, 2: 475-515.
57.
RoweF.2014. What literature review is not: Diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems, 23: 241-255.
58.
SandelowskiM.BarrosoJ.2003. Classifying the findings in qualitative studies. Qualitative Health Research, 13: 905-923.
59.
ShadishW.CookT. D.CampbellD. T.2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
60.
ShiW.WajdaD.AguileraR. V.2022. Interorganizational spillover: A review and a proposal for future research. Journal of Management, 48: 185-210.
61.
SiddawayA. P.WoodA. M.HedgesL. V.2019. How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70: 747-770.
62.
SimsekZ.FoxB.HeaveyC.2023. Systematicity in organizational research literature reviews: A framework and assessment. Organizational Research Methods, 26: 292-321.
63.
SimsekZ.HeaveyC.FoxB. C.YuT.2022. Compelling questions in research: Seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought. Journal of Management, 48: 1347-1365.
64.
SongY.GnyawaliD. R.SrivastavaM. K.AsgariE.2018. In search of precision in absorptive capacity research: A synthesis of the literature and consolidation of findings. Journal of Management, 44: 2343-2374.
65.
SpurkD.HirschiA.DriesN.2019. Antecedents and outcomes of objective versus subjective career success: Competing perspectives and future directions. Journal of Management, 45: 35-69.
66.
StarbuckW. H.2005. How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16: 101-102.
67.
SuttonA.ClowesM.PrestonL.BoothA.2019. Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36: 202-222.
68.
TemplierM.ParéG.2015. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37: 112-137.
69.
TemplierM.ParéG.2018. Transparency in literature reviews: An assessment of reporting practices across review types and genres in top IS journals. European Journal of Information Systems, 27: 503-550.
70.
TranfieldD.DenyerD.SmartP.2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14: 207-222.
71.
TriccoA. C.LillieE.ZarinW.O’BrienK. K.ColquhounH.LevacD.MoherD.PetersM. D. J.HorsleyT.WeeksL.HempelS.AklE. A.ChangC.McGowanJ.StewartL.HartlingL.AldcroftA.WilsonM. G.GarrittyC.LewinS.GodfreyC. M.MacdonaldM. T.LangloisE. V.Soares-WeiserK.MoriartyJ.CliffordT.TunçalpÖ.StrausS. E.2018. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169: 467-473.
72.
TriccoA. C.SoobiahC.AntonyJ.CogoE.MacDonaldH.LillieE.TranJ.D’SouzaJ.HuiW.PerrierL.WelchV.HorsleyT.StrausS. E.KastnerM.2016. A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73: 19-28.
73.
VecchioR. P.1999. Comments from the editor: 1999 yearly review: A retrospective issue celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Journal of Management. Journal of Management, 25: 229-230.
74.
VerleyeK.2019. Designing, writing-up and reviewing case study research: An equifinality perspective. Journal of Service Management, 30: 549-576.
75.
WilliamsM. J.2014. Serving the self from the seat of power: Goals and threats predict leaders’ self-interested behavior. Journal of Management, 40: 1365-1395.
76.
XiaoY.WatsonM.2019. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39: 93-112.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
